Short and to the point, lol. But, I disagree because I believe in natural rights- life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc., which I do not believe one group of people can give to others. All people are born with those rights- they are only taken away by other men at times, although without law I do believe they could still potentially exist. The law does not create those rights, it sometimes just seeks to protect them.
What do you mean when you say "rights" and what do you mean with "privileges", and what are the differences between the two?
Rights are what everyone has. Right to life, right to freedom, right to happiness, ect. Privileges are things that a gov't could logically argue for or against giving, voting, free speech, social safety net, ect.
It's true that some people call privileges rights but if it's not a 'natural' right, it's not a right period.
It's true that some people call privileges rights but if it's not a 'natural' right, it's not a right period.
Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. (It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda!) Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson?s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.
Just because a gov't doesn't recognize a right doesn't mean they don'y exist. It just means the gov't is setting itself up for revolution. :giggle:
No. All rights exist only by law; and without the law, we have no rights. What you are describing is anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of the rights you advocate. Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. In this, it must be admitted that there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself; and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). Such rights are nothing more than a scrambling possession that would be unlikely to last beyond the first to challenge the claim by force. No, the law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.
Law may help secure certain rights, but these rights do not exist because of the law. Furthermore, even in an anarchy, certain rights would certainly exist- the right to life once one is born, the right to pursue happiness, or even something like the right to have sex and reproduce. Every species other than humans is currently living proof that certain rights would still exist without the law.
"Rights are the fruits of the law and of the law alone; there are no rights without law - no rights contrary to law - no rights anterior to law."
- The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring, Vol. III, p. 221 (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843).
. . .
There is really no such thing as natural rights - of rights independent of the law. The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words "inherent" and "unalienable" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. As I stated before, the framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything needs must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life?s conception to the final disposition of one?s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law. Natural rights is a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings. Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law. As Bentham put it: Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).
- The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring, Vol. III, p. 221 (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843).
. . .
There is really no such thing as natural rights - of rights independent of the law. The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words "inherent" and "unalienable" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. As I stated before, the framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything needs must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life?s conception to the final disposition of one?s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law. Natural rights is a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings. Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law. As Bentham put it: Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).
But again, how would you classify the ability for a living being to be born and afterwards pursue happiness or reproduce? I am assuming you wouldn't classify those as rights? But then what are they? And again, how would you phrase this in terms of animal communities- from gorillas to lions to whatever as there is clearly no law in their world.
Gorillas and lions live in the natural world that is the subject to "the law of the jungle" - man lives in society which is subject to "the rule of law." Unto this last, there is not one right that is not subject to law. The right to life itself - even the very air we breathe - is subject to legal regulation. It cannot be otherwise. To say that rights exist independent of the law is - like the "chicken or the egg" dichotomy - fallacious, for the one cannot exist without the other. There are no absolute rights. All rights are subject to law that defines their limitation. To say that one has a right to anything can only be validated by law.
Well the "law" of the jungle is different than the law created by a state. Of course there is order in everything to an extent, and if you classify all that as law, then yes, you are correct. But, even without the "rule of law" man could survive and have rights- just as they surely did before the advent of civilization. You can claim they would in that circumstance live in the law of the jungle as well, and under that definition of the law, that claim might be justifiable. Even then though, there is a theory of physics that claims that the universe always increasing in entropy and if that is true, then even the "law" of the jungle may lose its order over time, but of course that brings us into a whole other topic.
What rights? Beyond the law there is only savagery - where Kraft macht Recht ("might makes right") - that is the state of natural law. Natural rights are but cold comfort when they can be taken away with impunity.
You will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. You will find them ground in law. (Quoting John Locke will get you nowhere in court!) Even God-given rights are only good in heaven. In this world, one need have recourse to the law.
You will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. You will find them ground in law. (Quoting John Locke will get you nowhere in court!) Even God-given rights are only good in heaven. In this world, one need have recourse to the law.
It just came to mind
Really depends on one's view of the world, I guess. When you put it that way, then everything intangible thing is essentially a social construct- love, consciousness, thought, etc.
I still see some rights even in a world without law though though- such as the right to reproduce. Sure one can take it away, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. The whole idea of Darwinism is on competition and even there, the right to compete exists.
Rights are extraordinary hard to define and even Jurisprudence tries to provide an answer to this. The fact of the matter is, there is no single definition for the term "rights" and the usage depends very much on the context in which it is discussed.
E.g. Legal rights vs. natural rights
Rights in rem vs. Rights in personam
Positive rights vs. negative rights
Primary rights vs. Secondary rights
etc.
It's a very technical subject and I think lay people find it harder to grasp because of the muti-faceted nature of the issue.
I'm not saying that only lawyers can understand rights, but I am saying that only a bit of legal knowledge and background will help a lay man define and explore the topic in depth.
E.g. Legal rights vs. natural rights
Rights in rem vs. Rights in personam
Positive rights vs. negative rights
Primary rights vs. Secondary rights
etc.
It's a very technical subject and I think lay people find it harder to grasp because of the muti-faceted nature of the issue.
I'm not saying that only lawyers can understand rights, but I am saying that only a bit of legal knowledge and background will help a lay man define and explore the topic in depth.
The Forbidden Truth is that there are natural Truth-based rights, and thus you are incorrect. The law has no Truth-based legitimacy and legal rights are lie-based and genocidally malevolent and destructive. Currently, most citizen-slaves enjoy little to no legitimate rights.
Legal "rights" as they currently stand can be violated, but that does not mean that real rights do not exist.
After all, why would you talk about the violation of rights being a cold comfort if you think the very violation is not a problem? Why not have no legal rights and thus "solve" the violation issue? Why not have the right to be tortured with whips and forced to drink urine every day as a right with no others?
The answer, of course, that something other than law decides what rights should be. The rest is a matter of what and to whom the rights apply.
But what is law grounded upon? What need to enforce them if they are arbitrary due to mere dictate? It makes no sense. It's bad philosophy.
I would agree that what current societies largely call "rights" (legal rights of the individual) are as you suggest above, but you do not account for Truth-based legitimate rights.
Similar threads
